Consumer rights protection is expensive, however, not efficient

Only a quarter of Lithuanian consumers feel that they are sufficiently protected from low quality goods and services, despite the fact that consumer rights are protected by 18 State and 60 municipal institutions, public entity European Consumer Center, as well as 20 consumers' associations. Their activities are coordinated by the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority. Taking into consideration this situation the NAO performed audit on management and coordination system for consumer rights protection.

Auditor General Rasa Budbergytė pointed out that often consumers do not know where to turn to when their rights are violated, because the competence of the responsible institutions is not enough clear; institutions duplicate each other's activities. Therefore often consumer complaints are sent from one institution to another for a long time, howerver, without any clear answer to a consumer, while sanctions are not  always  imposed on sellers of low quality goods and providers of low

quality services.

In the opinion of the NAO, distribution of functions among the State Food and Veterinary Service, State Non Food Products Inspectorate, and the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority is not well-balanced. The latter authority investigates complaints and makes indicative decisions as second level institution, although analogous decisions are already made by the first level institution. The NAO found that such procedure established in the Law on Consumer Protection is complex and expensive, and does not ensure efficient protection of consumer rights. Furthermore, about half of such indicative decisions are not put info effect, therefore consumers are left with the only possibility: to go to court.

The NAO noticed that so far there is still no legal act regulating reparations for the collective damage. The audit report stressed that in recent years the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority did not go to courts on the basis of protection of the public interest; it has not sufficiently controlled if standard terms of consumer contracts are sound and fair.

Ms Budbergytė emphasized that it is necessary to clearly define the remit and responsibility of consumer rights protection institutions. "It is necessary to abolish redundant and duplicating functions of institutions, to simplify procedure for out-of-court protection of consumers and provide for measures ensuring an efficient implementation of decisions concerning disputes between consumers and economic entities," she added.


Full report is available in Lithuanian:
Protection of Consumer Rights